1 2025:CGHC:59369-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 618 of 2025 Shantanu Joshi S/o Shri Shail Joshi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Manki, Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter - Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Teacher Central Jail Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.08 16:37:59 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order or direction and quash/ set-anide the decision of the Jail Authority (as reflected in the information dated 24.10.2025 prepared by the respondent no. 4 under the Right to Information Act 2005) in rejecting the prayer preferred on behalf of the petitioner for his admission in LL.B. Course; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to make suitable arrangement for admission & study of the petitioner in LL.B. Course; and 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner is a convicted prisoner presently lodged in the Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.). He was convicted by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 09/2017 vide judgment dated 07.03.2020 for offences under Sections 120- B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to 3 undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/- (and three months’ simple imprisonment in default) for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, and to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- (and three months’ simple imprisonment in default) for the offence under Section 302 IPC, with both sentences directed to run concurrently. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 448/2020, which came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 20.06.2023. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.09.2016 and continues to undergo the sentence imposed against him. 5. During his incarceration in Central Jail, Bilaspur, the petitioner pursued and successfully completed B.A. Part-I (2023), Part-II (2024) and Part-III (2025) examinations. After completion of graduation, the petitioner expressed his desire to pursue the LL.B. course and sought permission to attend classes either in physical mode or through online/virtual mode. A similar request was also made by the petitioner’s mother before the jail authorities. However, no action was taken. 6. Subsequently, in response to an RTI application filed by the petitioner’s counsel, the Public Information Officer, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur, furnished information dated 24.10.2025 stating that the petitioner’s application for admission 4 in the LL.B. course had been closed (nastibaddha) due to the unavailability of the necessary facility for online LL.B. classes inside the jail. 7. It is the petitioner’s case that a convict is entitled to basic human rights and to live with dignity even within the confines of prison. The right to education, being intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, extends equally to prisoners. Education plays a vital role in reformation and rehabilitation, objectives that lie at the core of the penal system. Denial of opportunity to pursue further studies, solely on the ground of non-availability of online class facilities within the jail, amounts to an unwarranted and arbitrary deprivation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to education. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the decision of the Jail Authority reflected in the information dated 24.10.2025 prepared by respondent No.4 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 rejecting the petitioner’s request for admission to the LL.B. course is concerned, the same is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is urged that such rejection violates the fundamental guarantees enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is further submitted that a convict continues to be entitled to basic human rights and retains the right to live with dignity even while inside the jail. The prisoner’s right to education is an 5 extension of the right to live with dignity. A person undergoing incarceration has an equal right to pursue academic studies as any other citizen outside the prison. The very purpose of imprisonment is not merely deterrence, but also reformation and rehabilitation; and education plays a pivotal role in achieving these objectives. It fosters a sense of belonging with the larger community, instils hope and aspiration, ensures purposeful utilisation of time in custody, and equips prisoners to lead better and meaningful lives upon release. Denial of access to education, therefore, frustrates the reformative and rehabilitative goals of the penal system. 10. It is contended that the right to education forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in the case of the petitioner, such right is being denied merely on the ground that the jail lacks facilities for conducting online LL.B. classes, which cannot be a valid basis to curtail a fundamental right. 11. Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Crl.M.A. No. 3/2023 in Crl.A. No. 740/2018 (Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala), which squarely supports the petitioner’s claim. The said order was challenged by the Bar Council of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11532/2025; however, the 6 SLP was dismissed on 21.03.2025, thereby affirming the view of the High Court. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned action of the Jail Authority does not suffer from any infirmity. It is contended that the petitioner is a convicted prisoner undergoing life imprisonment and, therefore, his rights are subject to reasonable restrictions required for maintaining discipline, security and administrative feasibility within the jail premises. It is further submitted that the facility for online or virtual LL.B. classes is not available in the jail, and the authorities cannot be compelled to create new infrastructural arrangements exclusively for one inmate. The State maintains that the decision taken by the Jail Authority is purely administrative in nature, based on practical limitations, and does not amount to violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 14. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced and the documents on record, this Court finds that though a prisoner continues to possess certain fundamental and human rights even during incarceration, such rights cannot be claimed in an unfettered manner so as to override the practical limitations inherent in prison administration. The right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution, like all other rights of a convict, is 7 subject to reasonable restrictions necessitated by concerns of safety, discipline, security and administrative feasibility. 15. In the present case, the Jail Authority has specifically stated that the facility for conducting online or virtual LL.B. classes is not available in the Central Jail. The petitioner is, in effect, seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to create such facility exclusively for him. This Court is of the considered view that no such writ can be issued. Matters relating to infrastructure, resource allocation and technological arrangements within prisons fall strictly within the executive domain, and in the absence of patent arbitrariness or malice, this Court cannot substitute its own views. 16. The record further does not reveal that the petitioner has been discriminated against or treated differently from other inmates. The decision of the Jail Authority appears to be founded on administrative practicality and logistical constraints. In the absence of any demonstrable illegality, perversity or constitutional violation, this Court finds no ground to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is observed that the petitioner shall remain at liberty to avail such educational opportunities as are presently available within the existing framework of prison facilities, and the Jail Authorities shall consider any such request 8 of the petitioner in accordance with law and applicable prison rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan